As part of our Transformation & Tech series, we invited key figures in the legal operations sector to discuss this topic and share their experiences regarding successful strategies and lessons learned in revitalizing existing legal technologies.
It became evident that several of our legal operations specialists, upon assuming new roles, had encountered the recommendation from established teams to abandon the old system – often deemed inefficient – and invest in a newer, more appealing alternative. This option can be tempting; however, seasoned professionals understand that new solutions are not always better and that issues with existing technology warrant thorough investigation before making any decisions.
Often, the problems associated with current systems merit closer examination, particularly because understanding past failure is essential for successful implementation of new technologies.
In our experience, it is rarely a case of the product being solely at fault. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to discover that prior technology selections were made without comprehensive needs assessment sor adequeate stakeholder involvement. Typically, this results in choosing products that do not necessarily aligh with the team’s requirements, despite the technology itself being sounds. As we all recognize, identifying the root problem and prioritizing user needs are crucial steps in evaluation potential solutions.
Therefore, revisiting and reassessing the problem and reviewing the team’s needs is a prudent starting point for any decision to either persist with or replace existing legal technology. It may be that the initial needs have evolved, leading to the team outgrowing the originally implemented solution rather than having chosen an inappropriate one initially. This type of review permits amore objective evaluation of whether to rejuvenate the current system or transition to a new one.
Following discussions on assessing such decisions, we explored the optimal approach once the decision to retain an existing solution has been reached. A critical component of this approach involves re-establishing the correct relationship with the technology provider. Key recommendations including setting new parameters, candidly addressing past shortcomings on both sides, and establishing definitive timelines for improvement plans. This should not be an indefinite opportunity but rather a reset with clear objectives and schedules dates for regular evaluations and a final deadline if the second attempt does not yield the desired outcomes.
Our discussions ultimately revealed that replacing old legal technology with new solutions is not always the best approach. It is important to understand the requirements, objectively recognize where issues have arisen previously, and consider how to avoid those mistakes in the future. Honest conversations and thoughtful evaluations are essential for successfully revitalising an existing technology solution, but it is clearly possible to do so and worthy of consideration.
If you’d like help independently reviewing your current use of legal technology, assistance in finding new ways to ensure the return on investment is realised, contact DWF’s Legal Operations & Technology Consulting team to discuss the options.
